Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9543863" data-attributes="member: 6801228">No, those are not options. Coming back later and reviving the dead child is not an acceptable answer. And look at what you presented FIRST "depending on your level and or resources". Think about that. You are starting with the premise that allowing a child to die is FIRST a matter of power. I believe we were level 4 at the time, so tell me, should level 4 characters based on their POWER and RESOURCES allow a child to be murdered?And?Out of all the games I have been in, where we went longer than a year, I believe three of them have had scenes where my character was killed while fighting solo, or nearly solo, against an enemy while the rest of the party sat and watched. Not because my character or me wanted to fight solo, but because the party determined that they didn't like the risk involved in helping me. One time they decided to play cards, while my character was fighting for their life in a prison cell that nullified all their powers. That session ended with the DM forcing them out of their cells to pursue my corpse, and I skipped the next session. Becuase I was dead, there was no way to revive me in the next session, and I would have shown up to just watch the party fight the nemesis from my background, in her first and only appearance in the game. And that didn't sound fun to me, to sit at a table, doing nothing, while the story beat I'd waited a year for played out without my character. This particular game I recounted with the fey almost had a scene like that I think, but I did play a game with that group where I was again abandoned by the party. But it isn't about high-risk, high-reward. That's not the point I was making. If you are a paladin who swore an oath to protect the innocent and uphold justice, but you only do that when it is safe to do so... you are not a paladin. You are a coward. Believing in ideals is supposed to be hard. The archetype of the Paragon is one where you should be the one who stands up to injustice when it is dangerous, perhaps even foolhardy to do so. And too often, the response I see online to players doing that is to mock them, call them idiots, and say they deserved to die for doing something so obviously dangerous. To posit that it is better for just one of the characters to die instead of all of them. And sure, in the early days of DnD playing ratcatchers and graverobbers, maybe that was the point of the game. Maybe the idea was that heroes and those with ideals are idiots who deserve death. But the modern game hasn't given me the impression that that is what it is about.</blockquote>

Verification